Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 5, 2014 11:00pm-11:31pm PDT

11:00 pm
health i'd like to is us address that there are clear evidence particularly when i look at europe standards and how they're not impacting light and houses this is an issue we don't have this codified but it maybe the same thing to open this particular document >> thank you. >> commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll will move onto the next item we've considered item 9 now item 10. at 490 van ness avenue for conditional use authorization >> why don't we give them a minute. >> we'll give a moment for the
11:01 pm
room to clear. >> we like a standing podium.
11:02 pm
11:03 pm
>> looks like people for this hearing are now coming in. >> yes. coming in. >> okay commissioners it does appear as though those who are exiting are exiting so commissioners i'd like to remind you we're on the one hand on item 10 south van ness avenue.
11:04 pm
>> hi i was going to get a sense of the commission for proposing a continuance on this item i met with the project sponsor and there's open items we're talked about rising the project. i talked with with them out in the halfway i want to put this on the floor to get a sense of what the rest of the commission thinks and commissioner moore >> i was asked a few weeks to speak to the director of design jeff and richard we talked with the architect and kind of free willing discussed the project there was a good understanding and interest to address a number of issues which based on the
11:05 pm
fatigue i personally didn't receive a passage of the drawings remained unaddressed and the if i could summarize what was asked in the meeting. >> hi, i'm rich the department staff we've expressed concerns over the designs including the material pallet and additional views for the masking model and sensitivity towards the alleys. right now the project is code compliant with the alley controls by adjustments of the floor screen. before the flexible occupancies of the ground floor >> commissioner antonini. i've been following this closely there's been changes made and
11:06 pm
i'd like to hear the case today and see what the changes are and see if it suits the commissioners and if it didn't we can talk about it the issues are pretty clear as the design changes we need to make and they're made and make it simple. >> commissioner moore. >> i come with that attitude with a slight bias the architect is not about doing but the drawings are reviewed xinl without prudentially individually and those drawings were not in my packet so to give them appropriate room the architect being given a week or
11:07 pm
two to do so when the gentleman instructed the architect at the meeting we had two weeks ago it was clear of the expectation; is that correct you were the one that said submit the drawings 5 so i could put them in the excision passage. >> commissioner hillis. >> i mean again, i wasn't at the meeting you so i don't have that this is the forum to talk about it to get changes you might have discussed with the property owner or the staff might have discussed is indeed needing to be drawn but i'm open but i'd like to hear it and get the issues in this case we have other issues that's what the forum is for. i'll yours or urge us to hear is
11:08 pm
to the public can see where it goes >> for the record the meeting was called by staff. >> sounds like we'll go ahead and hear the case then or, sir. >> i did not hear a motion to continue so we'll precede with the matter. >> good afternoon commissioners department staff the project before you is a large project negotiation authorization for the property on van ness after the project is seeking mischievous for the planning requirement for radish and the set backs and usable open space and other spaces. the proposed project included the demolition of the automotive station and a new 7 story residential building with 48
11:09 pm
off-street parkings and the dwelling did you not u unit i unit has 31 bedroom units it includes second floor terrace and a roof-deck the entrance is located off the 12th street it has received expression of support or opposition the copies of the new corresponds have been priority the department has received additional notification from the san francisco unified school district and as well as 45 letters of support for the project and 346 letters of opposition it has elected the oversight affordable housing within the zoning district and subject to the affordable housing requirement that
11:10 pm
requires 16 of the total number of units to be designated as part of the inclusiony project and it will provide 72 oversight units for ownership after analysis the project staff recommends approval with conditions it goes along with the planning code and it is located in a zoning district where the ground spaces a loud it as cornering retail and landscaping the project compiles with the hiring agreement and adds dwelling units to the housing stock that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you project sponsor.
11:11 pm
>> i have some overheads if i could put these up. i'm the architect for the project sponsor my office is foreign design i want to give you history of the project it has a long history in 2008, we were commission by the prove or disprove to look at the property is he say what could be done there was a cab bused yard a gas station deferring lick position it was in the eastern neighborhood plans. our first responsibility to look at the plan and understand what the implications for the coding
11:12 pm
codification and in addition a part of the neighborhoods that zeroed in on the mission district. so given that history we as architects followed as much as possible and we're very cognizant of the changes that were made in the code. the project was very zoned at e m u it's called a twooer 2 sites that means it get up zoned from 50 to 68 feet, however, with the benefit there's the responsibility to also created b m r there are greater than normal we went from 12 to 16 percent in addition the project sponsor is required to pay a heath i didn't impact fee for oversight amenity so the tier
11:13 pm
two responded that it got the 68 height limit if you look at the neighborhood this entire four corners the four corners of 16 and van ness are zoned for 68 feet and our understanding in the eastern neighborhoods the nexus of that intersection not only being close to bart and 16th street obey important that south van ness being along the city i should say needing improvements but this sfwshgs required a significant building and taller building we went through the policy of the eastern neighborhood i will list the highlights to give you a sense of why the architecture is important it called for taller buildings and literallyy said
11:14 pm
more formally architecture to align with the streets because it's an important transit corner we think the architecture of the building is a form list but very rewell-defined and articulated building representative of the kind of building on an important streetcar corner another policy the building should look at contemporary architecture. and i will go to the next slide. and show this is how do we make this a little bit so it's got more - how do we do that there we go this is navigate the
11:15 pm
revised architecture we've responded to commissioner moore's and our meeting with the planning department a week i said it's an short notice but the basic element of this building it does respect the red zone building which is our in the matter largest neighbor we're trite to emulate the materials at the because of the building not literallyly pitting brick but articulate the building so the formality and the strengthen on the corner respects the older structure. in addition there's a rear yard requirement to went the patterns of open space as the planner said we're compiling with 25 percent we adjusted the 25 percent a little bit. but with respect to the height of the building this is something that's been discussed
11:16 pm
the height of the building at 68 feet i'll show some models that we recently developed this was in response to commissioner moore and the departments respiratory to show the models of the building we've set back the back of the building and proecht to set back on the 7th floor to tier down but if you go to the policy 24 is jermaine to the history of the development the policy 3.1.2 is important it says set backs are not required in the first 60 listen i can't remember feet from the adjourning streets the reason in the neighborhoods plan was to allow a proper street along the major aerials. and this is why it was literally
11:17 pm
stated you could do 60 feet into the alley and after that your sunlight controls kicked in the ghosting of the building showing is show you we step down. i'd like to show you the site plan this is the 60 feet there this additional 35 feet is only 10 foot high so there's an average on the building in you take the 65 and the 10 it's 35 feet we've replaced and compiled with the eastern neighborhoods and understood the sunlight ordinances with regard weren't to that alley but the rear yard
11:18 pm
is 35 feet and the total of the radish is a code compliance of 35 so we've replaced did red stone building go with the set back they have a 6 yard set back and a radish from 22 to 25 feet we've replaced the building and represented the alley we looked at that as an architecture of the building and i'll go back. and this is the revised proposed plan when i say we only decided we're proposing the set back seven hundred and 50 square feet from the top we we have a building that has a lot of scale if you look at the details this is a very, very finely
11:19 pm
articulated building this is not an inexpensive building. and i'd like to show you i know again, this is the first time seeing but the materials are very rich in detail the tiles we propose to use at the bottom are handsome there's a white material in the center of the building to give it a camera look tow to give another look to the building there's no doubt in our minds this is a handled and varied material appropriate to age of this significance i know my time is almost up. a few things on the site plan not only do we have the rear
11:20 pm
yard but have set back the building in the center 8 feet so the mass of the, is 3 major pieces on south van ness. we've also provided about 6 hundred and 50 square feet of retail space and have a distinctive element we have 5 housing elements on the street this is a stretch for the developer but making this site safe by putting people on the street that are going to live there and respect their neighborhood we've asked to be flex faced this is a new concept it's been tried and commissioner moore asked the staff to articulate that a little bit our idea these are going to be approved as residential spaces
11:21 pm
with a use permit you can have a very, very small compliant business that are one or two bedrooms this is a positive thing for the street a very positive thing. we have 16 bike spaces and trees on this. hey >> thank you. >> your time is up. >> okay. i open up this for questions >> if the commissions have questions. >> i neglected to say that the supervisor is here. >> good afternoon commissioners. in conjunction with the discussion on the continuance this was raised supervisor reports until the stakeholders have provided with the new drawings after meeting with the
11:22 pm
supervisor the developer has engaged with the community organizations and the resident the marshall school and they're concerned there's no compromises made aid a continued dialog opportunity for - we believe that a detailed action it warranted to allow time to look at the responses from the concerned party and i'm sorry which supervisor >> supervisor campos office. >> thank you. okay so i believe the time is up for the project sponsor. >> yes. the project sponsor made they're ten minute presentation and a request granted for a 10 minute presentation with a minimum of 3
11:23 pm
speakers is plaza 16 here. >> yes. >> okay. >> good morning, commissioners thank you very much for this time i'm andy blue i live in the mission district representing the plaza 16 coalition it's a radically growing group with 50 organizations and businesses primarily in the mission district we believe in equality development we believe this requires thoughtful and community strategies to make sure that the community and complunt community of color participate that shape our neighborhood and our neighborhoods transit development we formed to oppose the project for the plaza we've deemed this a monster in the
11:24 pm
myths and advocate for the deeply affordable housing we'll you'll be hearing from us the planning commission reject all the conditions until the plan is met we ask the planning commission look at the land use outlining the plan specifically thegles outlining for people nonprofit for future development. as the property project for van ness is congregate another long string of larger condominium we ask you to reject this project >> hi, i'm tommy i'm with plaza 16 coalition i want to
11:25 pm
talk about to built our way of this housing crisis ted egan says it will take one hundred though maushth units to be make a noticeable dent? housing prices unquote not to bring them down to middle-class to afford them minimal our dwindling water supply if we brought in that many people and it didn't solve the problem but amazing made a small dent a grand jury report the mayor's office of housing under pressure and challenged to preserve different quotas while the housing market is enjoying
11:26 pm
it's investment one should not september the ownership crisis? city to decreasing even if the mayors 25shg9 of thirty thousand new units by 2024 is met the report suggests the best way to make the housing affordable have the technological bubble we're under burst we may not be able to build b build our way out but we have to have the housing for the people living on the streets it could came into from vacant buildings or the purchase and rehab of the vacant building by the san francisco land use and housing providers in the past few years the city has seen the constructions of 2 thousand new
11:27 pm
mashlth condo and no december essential decrease in rent or the price of housing in the city. this commission needs to take a long are hard look at the relatives of it's approval of signature market rate housing like the mission this commission needed to understand those projects are not benefiting the community not bring down rent or the price of real estate they're driving real estate and commercial rents up and leading to the displacement of tenants and small businesses. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm marie i'm the housing organize in her the cause of the member of the coalition i really want to echo a lot of the sentiments that tommy has
11:28 pm
expressed to put this into context this is one of 4 or 5 either proposed or already developed projects within a 4 block radius of the mission there are thirty sro units and thousands of rent controlled unit and all of those units all of those residents are in danger of being priced out the mission particularly has seen over 5 hundred units in the last four or five years alone and in this intersection the corner of 16 and the mission an increase of 3 hundred or proposed or market rate units the sro's are going on sale and sro's are being so the buildings can be sold and
11:29 pm
given to tourist hotels there's not that many sro's in the mission around the development project at 16 and mission at 490 van ness and 15 and south van ness the tenants are seeing rent increases their being pressured to move out by their landlords who see that cross the streets there's a new condo being sold and a new rental for $5 million so why is it so there's trying to charge those represents. the b m r units that are going to be built on site at 490 south van ness are at ami what they're at 50 percent ami they're out of reach for the latino tenants? mix who are being displaced out
11:30 pm
of their long-term unit what happens we do you believe that to 90 percent we're not saying we don't need housing it's clear we need housing but not nor o more market rate but you housing for people that are under ami and are having to live in their trucks because they've not been able to after being evicted not finding housing they move to the outlying suburbans in the bay area or they live in their vehicles in the bay area and as commissioners as residents of the san francisco i think you'll agree we there are needs to be a better solution how development happens what happens in the affordable housing crisis this is unacceptable. thank you. >>

2 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on